[Tlhingan-hol] -Ha' on adverbs

[De'vID]

QeS 'utlh:
> As Qov said, Marc basically implied that -Ha' is *grammatically* legal on
> any adverb, but for some it's semantically nonsensical. It was 'angghal who
> pointed out during the conversation that ??chaqHa' would be weird, and
> ghunchu'wI' then thought of rut. So the sense we got is that while ??chaqHa'
> or ??rutHa' are grammatically legal, they just aren't usefully meaningful
> (like chIS'egh or HolDaq). ngugh, ghIq and DaH probably wouldn't work with
> -Ha' for the same reason.

Why wouldn't {DaHHa'} work?  We have {SIbI'} "immediately" and
{SIbI'Ha'} "later, eventually" (meaning derived from Klingon
Monopoly[1]).  I'd understand {DaHHa'} as an urgent version of
{SIbI'Ha'}, in the same way that {SIbI'} is an urgent version of
{DaH}.

{DaH qama' yIHoH} "Kill the prisoner now!"
{DaHHa'} "Not now!"

(i.e., We still want to kill the prisoner, but for strategic reasons
we should do it later; you wouldn't use {SIbI'Ha'} here because you're
interrupting someone's command, but after things have calmed down you
might assure the other person, {SIbI'Ha' wIHoH}.)

If {DaHHa'} doesn't work, how else would you say "not now"?  I suppose
you could repeat the verb: {DaH yIHoHQo'}.  But this doesn't put the
emphasis on the right thing (i.e., "Now, don't kill the prisoner" is
not quite the same as "don't kill the prisoner now").

I'd also understand {ngughHa'} as "at a different time" and {ghIqHa'}
as "not subsequently, after some time".

{Ha'DIbaH HoH tlhIngan, ghIq Ha'DIbaH Sop tlhIngan.  Ha'DIbaH HoH
tera'ngan, 'ach ghIqHa' Ha'DIbaH Sop tera'ngan.  Huj tera'nganpu'.}

(Also, don't forget it's Star Trek, so there's time travel and beings
that exist outside of time.  {DaHHa' Picard vaqtaH Q} :-) )

[1] The example from Klingon Monopoly:
{chaw'vam yIpol 'ej SIbI'Ha' yIlo' pagh 'oH yImech.}
"This card may be kept until needed or traded."

-- 
De'vID